Anarchy

It seems to me that the biggest problem with an anarchist system is the size of populations. Take China or some other country of similar size, turn it anarchist, and you'd get complete chaos. Take some little self-sufficient town out in the middle of nowhere where everybody gets along pretty well, take away from it the influence of any kind of state or government, and that pretty much just takes away all the beauracratic crap they have to deal with.

Who's to say that people can't get along when a small community -- every single person who wants to live there -- decides to work for their own individual interests and yet agrees to trade their goods or whatever with each other according to their own judgement and terms, and everybody that decides to build this community has similar codes of ethics and philosophy that promote prosperity.

But with the way things are today, you'd have a lot of trouble going out somewhere and finding a spot of land worth settling such a community on that's not already controlled by some government; to my knowledge, at least.

Now why couldn't that logically work? I don't buy this pessimistic crap that people simply can't work with each other in a way where everyone is capable of their own happiness in an environment of complete freedom. I don't buy that not everyone has that drive and ambition somewhere in 'em. I think it just seems otherwise today because of the cultures that come from the influence of a large population: all of this welfare and handout culture.

What are your views, 4chan? Discuss.

>>35
Okie-doke. You ask that question as if you disagree with the idea of anarchy, so I'm going to ask you this question in reply:
What practical way is there to achieve ANY type of government? There is no way to rule people without sacrifice, dissention and blood unless you turn em all into robots. And when you do end up ruling them, how much more good are you really achieving at the price of life? Men are not robots. Stop the attempts at individuals or groups that want to grab power over people, and you get rid of the mass blood at the hands of the heads of so-called states. How practical is it to try and rule people with such human natures present as opposed to letting people rules themselves in their own groups by their own rules without a named leadership? Anarchy is not the abscence of peace, just as peace is not the abscence of dissention. Let people work it out.
It is my observation that governments do little more than create dependency among their populations, and kill the populations of other governments, all at the hands of the few people that want to rule those populations, while the people themselves want to simply live in peace. Anarchy is not the abscence of peace, just as peace is not the abscence of dissention.